Context is everything regarding online trolling, so why is BBC Online again ignoring context?
You’d think the BBC might have learned, but after mis-quoting Paul Chambers’ Twitter Joke Trial tweet as part of a general ‘bereft of senses’/social media shitstorm, it’s now done much the same with Justin Carter case: Should online jokes be criminal?
If you’re unfamiliar with the story, US teen Justin Carter unwisely posted something stupid online and an anonymous tip-off led to him languishing in jail on suicide watch, faced with a potentially lengthy jail sentence. What did he post? Well, according to the BBC, this:
I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten
And watch the blood of the innocent rain down
And eat the beating heart of one of them.
Dumb, right? I mean, really dumb. But, you know, he’s a teenager, and, as reported by the Washington Times and plenty of other places:
the next two lines were lol and jk,” said Jack Carter, Justin’s father.
You won’t see those lines in the BBC’s article.
I don’t doubt people should think more before they rattle off some kind of obscene stupidity online, and it’s true online ‘anonymity’ leads certain people to be, frankly, arseholes, safe and secure in the knowledge the person or people they’re broadcasting to won’t be able to retaliate. However, organisations like the BBC do no-one any favours by shaving off bits of the story. An exclamation mark and word or two in the Chambers tweet, and the ‘lol’/’jk’ additions in the Carter case totally change the context of what was written.
Fortunately, the BBC’s article subsequently at least attempts a level of balance, exploring both sides of this kind of incident. That said, I do worry that we’re now seeing government agencies attempting to make examples of people, in order to stifle any kind of online dissent. If not, they’ve actually lost the ability to distinguish between idiotic banter and genuine threats, which is just as big a concern.
As someone who has had the same online pseudonym for going on 12 years, I find the repetition of the trope that anonymity is linked to boorish behaviour beginning to wear a bit thin. And thanks to the internet, we have the counter example of Facebook. A quick web search will provide several routine examples of people whom, using an account under their real name that is also linked to family, friends, relatives, will post the most vile, insulting, violent, arrogant threats, claims and ideas for all the world to see on whatever topic has annoyed the crap out of them that week. Especially in the US, and especially on the topics of gun control, abortion and separation of church and state.
This is not a binary claim, in that I am not saying that those whom harass or verbally assault strangers thru social media aren’t emboldened by their anonymity and that in face to face encounters they more likely than would not engage in such actions. It’s just become apparent that being being anonymous does not make someone an asshole. The internet is full of people, which means it’s already chock full of assholes, and they don’t care very much about anonymity.
That’s a very fair point, and I certainly wasn’t arguing people who don’t provide their real names are by default arseholes, and those who use their real names aren’t. However, even on this blog read by literally several people, the number of ‘anonymous’ trolls very much outweighs the number of people doing something similar and signing off with an actual name.
So it’s not binary, but it’s also not balanced.
However, I’m (as I wrote) really more concerned about the wider point, in governments increasingly clamping down in draconian ways on people who were merely stupid and thoughtless online, rather than an actual threat.
The government itself is anonymous. The arresting police officer is anonymous official with immunity against lawsuits. The jailer who incarcerates the suspect is anonymous under the cloak of following the custodial order to meet a minimum requirement. The public prosecutor is a named individual but is assumed to be of highest moral standard and by default are not to be subject to critic. If public prosecutors ethics are indeed questioned the opposing voices are muted and ridiculed with referrals to ‘public good’ or the thousands of citizens that obviously could have been harmed by did not know they were in danger and therefore did not claim their complaint. The judge is a public figure, but is not subject to critique. In fact badmouthing a judge in his own courtroom will lead to immediate bench arrest. Draconian long sentences are issued for petty crimes. No one speaks up about the necessity of such sentences and the obvious cost to the society of being ‘tough on crime’. All this in the stark contrast with the public records law that allows all arrested suspects names and pictures to be published on the internet the next day, regardless if later acquitted or not. We have gone from innocent until proven guilty, to arrest first and send pictures to the internet and then take it from there. Mistakes happens in all kinds of line of work, right? No apologies will handed out for ‘innocent mistakes’ such as wrongful arrests. The defendant will have many kinds of inconveniences such a job loss, financial burden, defamation, and physical harm when incarcerated and held together with violent crime offenders, But the police arrested the guy so there must have been something wrong, right? Wrong. The police would not just arrest people for nothing. I think it is better that the police and the government are starved of resources than the opposite. It is better to hear the police officer to defend himself to real life victims that we don’t have the resources to handle all these crimes happening, than the police writing their own statistics and get instant approval for funding. Idle hands are the devil. The police professionalism goal is not arresting with a smile on the face, neutral language and no brutality. The goal is to minimize wrongful arrests and have accountability. Where is the ‘How is my driving 1-800’ sticker on the cop car? The public prosecutor should stop the common practice of overcharging. The public should review every sentence by every judge for cost, length of incarceration and necessity, Every summoned jury should take effort to understand how jury nullification relates to true justice versus moderation of overzealous overreaching public servants. Every boss has a boss. In a very, very long circle: please reject anonymity within your government. Please I ask you again.